Christians... riddle me this!

If the commandment 'thou shalt not kill' appeals to god, then why does he kill so many?

The commandment actually says "thou shalt not murder" in Hebrew. And from God's perspective no man is sinless and death is a secondary consequence of
the curse after the fall of man. And lastly, God gives life, He also takes it. All men have an appointed time to die and face judgment.

To murder someone is to kill them while precipitating on it. God kills people premeditatively because he knows the hour in which they will die.
What's the difference?

The difference is He is God and as giver of life has the authority as sovereign Lord to end life. When humans murder someone we act as God. We
don't have authority or sovereignty to take life. We aren't God, but He is.

So the 10 commandments do not appeal to him. If the 10 commandments don't appeal to god then how can you believe they are the absolute moral code?
You said earlier that in order to have an absolute moral code, it must appeal to god.

Then tell me, what answers would you accept? Please outline them and I will make a decision on whether I agree with them.

Sorry I took so long getting back to you.

No, I can't give you a list because, like I said earlier, you need to think this through and not just accept someone else's opinion. All you need to
do is identity what you believe the source of absolute morality is, bearing in mind that it needs to conform to the four criteria
I cited earlier, in order to be absolute. Barring that, you can just
throw in your hat with the "there is no absolute morality" crowd and we can proceed from there.

Are you disagreeing that the 10 commandments are absolute?

No, they are not absolute, because they are one implementation of morality, but they are not morality itself.

So the 10 commandments do not appeal to him. If the 10 commandments don't appeal to god then how can you believe they are the absolute moral code? You
said earlier that in order to have an absolute moral code, it must appeal to god.

Example: A mom and dad lay down a rule to their teenage children telling them not to drink alcohol, are the parents also prohibited from drinking
alcohol? And secondly, your question is flawed, God cannot murder, He is Sovereign and decides when all lives end. He is God.

In addition, your example of "if it hurts us then it must hurt others" demonstrates reasoned morality, not absolute morality. This girl
can't feel pain, how is she to work out a reasoned morality?

Reasoned morality is not absolute, it is completely subjective,

You are blatantly separating physical "pain" (hurt) from moral "pain" (hurt). The two are completely separate biological issues!

Actually, I was responding to his statement that "when we get stabbed or we stub a toe that it hurts", aka physical pain.

She can "work out a reasoned morality" just fine....she needs only to be taught what physical things (like fire, scalding water, falling on
your face....) do to her -- and others -- regardless of whether she feels "physical" pain......

The issue isn't with her, or her inability to feel pain, but rather with the notion of "reasoned morality".

Ted Bundy was a serial killer, diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder, a condition in which a person lacks emotions like empathy, guilt,
compassion and so on. His "reasoned morality" was that there was nothing wrong with kidnapping, rape and murder -- in 1981, he said "I guess I am
in the enviable position of not having to deal with guilt." So, to Bundy, he could rationalize his behaviour, because by his reasoned morality, there
was nothing wrong with it.

That's an example of the deficiency of reasoned morality -- though almost everyone would agree that his actions were immoral, he would see them as
perfectly moral, and the only argument that you would then have is that the majority opinion on what is moral and what is not defines morality. And
we can quickly see the problems with that proposition.

Ted Bundy was a serial killer, diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder, a condition in which a person lacks emotions like empathy,
guilt, compassion and so on.

Sir, I know what APD is; I spent many years as a clinical psychotherapist, and have known several, both professionally and personally. You are very
quick to assume others are poorly educated or "deficient" in knowledge. I am not a child, I have grown children and a very well-rounded education,
with particular emphasis on human behavior and sociology.

Bundy was mentally ill. This young lady has no sense of "pain", therefore she is prone to be hurt by things like fire, cuts, etc. In particular if
she is a hemophiliac, she could be fatally injured and never know it.

This girl, provided she has 'normal' mentality, will not become another Ted Bundy. His issues were a result of a combination of his brain's
composition, early nurturing or lack thereof, and environmental stimulus, just like everyone else.

I have thought it through and I have given you my opinion, your criteria is not the universal criteria for morality, no matter how much you want it to
be.

If you think that Ted Bundy and killing babies are somehow moral, that is your prerogative. Killing is immoral no matter how you try to spin it, and
that is exactly what you are doing, spinning it a certain way. I want nothing to do with it, sorry.

Ted Bundy was a serial killer, diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder, a condition in which a person lacks emotions like empathy,
guilt, compassion and so on.

Sir, I know what APD is; I spent many years as a clinical psychotherapist, and have known several, both professionally and personally. You are very
quick to assume others are poorly educated or "deficient" in knowledge. I am not a child, I have grown children and a very well-rounded education,
with particular emphasis on human behavior and sociology.

You seem to do this over and over -- you misunderstand the point I am making, and when corrected, you ignore the fact that you were wrong, and instead
point out that you are an authority on things and you're a mother with children, and so you should be taken seriously.

Please calmly read the following, and use your well-rounded education to sort out what I am saying, because you're way off in left field, apparently
from not reading my posts and just replying on the basis of a couple of words.

I posited the case of the girl who didn't feel pain, not because I think she runs the risk of becoming a sociopath (and I seriously have no idea how
you came up with that,) but rather to point out the invalidity of the claim that a reasoned morality was absolute because we all share similar
experiences. Saying that we can draw morality out of the observation that when we stub our toe, we feel pain, is not a valid claim, because there are
people who don't feel pain.

I am not, in any way, saying that people who can't feel pain are not moral.

Because you didn't understand that refutation, I evidenced Mr. Bundy and his ASPD (which I believe is the correct acronym,) because it is a far
clearer case of faulty reasoned morality, due to the non-universal human experience. Can a person with ASPD work out a proper reasoned morality?
Maybe, but it seems far more likely that they would not, because of their flawed perspective.

So, again, this is not about that girl, or Ted Bundy, it is about the flawed thinking behind reasoned morality. Complaining about the examples given
has no bearing on the validity of my argument.

I have thought it through and I have given you my opinion, your criteria is not the universal criteria for morality, no matter how much you want it to
be.

Yes, but the example that you have given is not that of absolute morality. Reasoned morality depends on the conclusions of the person who is
reasoning it, so how can that be objective? As I showed you, different people can come to radically different moralities if they are left to
determine it on their own.

If you think that Ted Bundy and killing babies are somehow moral, that is your prerogative.

No, I don't think those actions are moral, but by the source of morality that you are promoting, reason, Bundy would have been entitled to claim that
his killing was moral, and our case for it being immoral would simply be one of opinion, not because there is an absolute basis that can be pointed
to.

If you insist on this being the basis for morality, (which is fine, I think it's a reasonable answer,) then you will need to withdraw your claim that
there is absolute morality, because absolutes cannot originate from a person's mind.

Okay, there is no such thing as a universal absolute morality, but my absolute morality is that you should not kill or hurt others, and I'm sure most
people would agree with my personal absolute morality.

You seem to do this over and over -- you misunderstand the point I am making, and when corrected, you ignore the fact that you were wrong, and
instead point out that you are an authority on things and you're a mother with children, and so you should be taken seriously.

And 'you seem to' keep up the same condescending attitude. Sir, if people (besides myself) are telling you that your abrupt and arrogant manner is
offensive, perhaps you might try rewording your posts.

If people continue to "interpret" you "over and over" as being difficult, well, then, maybe you're difficult. Explaining you're 'not being
difficult' is not working. You still appear difficult.

Your tone is what it is, and you "over and over" speak to me as though I am lesser than you. So, "over and over", I will point it out.

POINT: If you want people to hear past your condescension, it is up to YOU to change your approach, not ME or others who express offense, to "stop
interpreting you incorrectly."

I read through your entire debate with Druid, and I saw that you are capable of being reasonable, just as your subtitle states. Yet, your attitude
in other forums is consistently one of being what can be called "fed up with idiots", who 'crack you up', when they are clearly NOT trying to be
funny. As though you see them as buffoons with no credibility, and have no intention to allow them to earn any credibility in your eyes.

POINT: This is counterproductive to collective growth as a "group" looking into these matters. It is also counterproductive in "preachers".

In any case, you are not earning points for your side of the story, and I venture to say it's your smug and snide manner that rubs others the
wrong way. I see NuT was right when he advised me "not to go toe to toe with you" after your recent reappearance here.

POINT: It is not effective to mock and show disdain to anyone who doesn't agree with everything you say; and when misunderstood, to blame the
other person for their perfectly legitimate (mis)interpretation. Do you see how that works? (Actually I see what you do as more of a
deflection...you are being interpreted correctly, and then you twist things around to make it look like you are the victim of misinterpretation
through no fault of your own, but rather due to the interpreter's "issues" and "faulty thinking" that "have nothing to do with your
opinion.")

POINT (REPETITIVE, so you HEAR IT): A message of faith and spirituality, if intended to be taken in with courteous regard and sincere thought on the
part of the listener, will win more adherents if the speaker is respectful, sincere, and approachable. (As opposed to being a superior smart-ass, over
and over). This is one of the main problems with MOST preachers. They treat people listening to them as if they really are as stupid as sheep
or as ignorant and innocent as little children, rather than treating them with dignity and respect.

Do I get cranky and confrontation from time to time? Have a bad day or get irritated and bite at people. YES, I DO. But I'm always aware of it.
And when I'm cranky, I don't just automatically shut up so others won't hear me complain. People have every right to protest unfair treatment, and
to ask for clarification, WITHOUT expecting to be humiliated or dismissed for doing so. In your case, your abrupt manner overrides anything you say,
immediately, so that often I move on without straining to get your meaning. If that's what you're after, though, you're succeeding. Maybe
you don't really want to be heard, you just want to read back to yourself the erudite 'brilliance' that you write.

I posited the case of the girl who didn't feel pain, not because I think she runs the risk of becoming a sociopath (and I seriously have no
idea how you came up with that,) but rather to point out the invalidity of the claim that a reasoned morality was absolute because we all share
similar experiences. Saying that we can draw morality out of the observation that when we stub our toe, we feel pain, is not a valid claim, because
there are people who don't feel pain.

Fine. I agree with you on this one, you are correct.
If only your attitude were more welcoming, I would not keep reacting to one or two words and the overall tone; which you opened this post with AGAIN.
I will use my "well-rounded education" as I see fit, I don't need your poorly-cloaked patronization, thanks.

You seem to do this over and over -- you misunderstand the point I am making, and when corrected, you ignore the fact that you were wrong, and
instead point out that you are an authority on things and you're a mother with children, and so you should be taken seriously.

And 'you seem to' keep up the same condescending attitude. Sir, if people (besides myself) are telling you that your abrupt and arrogant manner is
offensive, perhaps you might try rewording your posts.

I don't disagree that I can be rude, condescending and sarcastic at times. I'm not particularly concerned with that turning people off, because I'm
not an evangelist, and I don't really care what people believe. What I do care about are facts, and when someone insists on presenting opinions as
facts, or giving factual errors that are demonstrable, I point that out. The "rudeness" generally only arises when the other person persists in
their ignorance.

I think the issue of factual accuracy is of the utmost importance, in this day of far too many people who just accept what they are told, regardless
of its truthfulness, and I think that is a very dangerous environment to allow untruths to exist unchallenged in.

Please reread that and explain to me how I was rude, condescending or arrogant, in any way, towards you. When I read it, I see nothing but civility
and an attempt to clarify the point I made earlier, but you didn't seem to understand. But maybe I am missing something.

Okay, there is no such thing as a universal absolute morality, but my absolute morality is that you should not kill or hurt others, and I'm sure most
people would agree with my personal absolute morality.

Well, "personal absolute morality" isn't really a valid concept, not as it applies to anyone, apart from yourself. I think what you are saying is
more akin to "killing or hurting others is never acceptable, in my opinion." Do I have that right?

And to just clarify, does killing refer to everything, or just other people? And would you say that you're using the word "killing" but really mean
murder? Meaning that killing in self defense would be okay, or not?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.